WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW

HOW TO BE HEARD

CHAPTER TWO: WE ARE ALL BIASED

We all have biases. Face up to yours!

Imagine you’re at the counter of a Domino's pizza shop. You choose chicken barbecue over pepperoni, and it tastes delicious. Good call!

Now, you’ve never liked pepperoni pizza, so were you biased against it when you made your decision? Yes, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Biases can be useful, helping us conserve our decision-making energy and deal with overwhelming amounts of information. So instead of being paralyzed by the choice between chicken barbecue, pepperoni, or one of the many other flavors, you end up with a pizza you really like.

On the other hand, biases can have negative consequences, too. Here are just two ways our biases can hamper our efforts to disagree productively:

Our biases can manifest as a mental shortcut that the psychologist Daniel Kahneman terms the availability heuristic. Essentially, when faced with a decision, we only consider the options that we can immediately call to mind. Problem is, we all have different availability heuristics. A solution or strategy that seems easy to you might seem difficult, disadvantageous or downright dangerous to someone else – and vice versa. When two or more availability heuristics clash, disagreements can often arise.

Another bias? In-group favoritism. We tend to give the benefit of the doubt to people who we consider to be part of “our group”, whether that’s someone who attended the same college as us or someone who votes the same way we do. The bias can be particularly toxic during a disagreement. While we’ll consider the arguments of people in our group, we’re apt to dismiss the perspectives of people outside of it. This a surefire recipe for an unproductive disagreement, and it narrows your worldview, too.

Both these mental shortcuts have evolved to save us time and mental energy, and in the right context, they could. But sometimes they fill in our mental gaps in lazy, ill-considered ways, rather than forcing us to consider alternative perspectives and arguments. When we’re stuck in one perspective, it’s hard to engage in open-minded and productive disagreements. 

The tricky thing about cognitive bias is that you can’t just turn it off and on when it suits you. In order to participate in productive disagreements, you need to honestly acknowledge your own biases. More than this, you need to admit that, unchecked, your biases can prevent you from seriously engaging with other viewpoints. Make sure your biases aren’t getting the better of you. Try to understand the thought processes that lead others to arrive at their arguments, and check yourself when you reflex-ly dismiss voices from a group that’s not your own.

Own your perspective, but don’t speculate about others.

When it comes to our careers, we’re often told to “play to our strengths.'' Well, the same advice applies to the way we approach our disagreements. When we’re arguing, one of our strengths is the way we inhabit and understand our own perspective. 

Speculating about our opponent’s perspective, on the other hand, is a weakness. When trying to understand our opponent’s arguments, we have an unfortunate tendency to oversimplify or even demonize their point of view.

To illustrate this point, let’s take a look at a hypothetical example: the story of two friends, Bob and Sofia, who had a disagreement relating to the 2016 US election. It was one of the most contentious and closely won elections in US history, yet many millions of people who were eligible to vote decided not to do so. When Sofia found out that Bob was one of these people, she was enraged. She understood perfectly why she had voted: because she believed passionately in one candidate and was strongly opposed to the other candidates. She thought she understood just as well why Bob hadn’t voted: because he was selfish, apathetic, and unwilling to do his democratic duty. 

As time passed, the voice of possibility popped up in Sofia’s thoughts. She had always respected Bob’s intelligence. Until then, she’d never thought of him as selfish. Was there some motivation behind his actions that she had missed? She reached out to Bob, and he explained. Unlike Sofia, Bob didn’t feel that any of the candidates were fit for office. He couldn’t vote for one in good conscience when he genuinely didn’t believe they would do a good job. So, he decided to exercise his right to abstain from voting. In fact, he considered his non-vote a protest.

Sofia doesn’t necessarily agree with Bob’s decision. But, by listening to the voice of possibility and reaching out, she now knows his motivations and reasoning were a lot more complex than she initially gave him credit for. Best of all, their friendship is intact.

What’s the lesson here? Speak for yourself! But more than that, invite others to do the same. You don’t need to agree with them, but you’ll understand where they’re coming from.

Please leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments box provided below.

Have a fruitful day!

Olusola Bodunrin is a graduate of Philosophy from the University of Ado-Ekiti. He is a professional writer, he writes articles for publication and he anchors – ‘What You Should Know’ on SHEGZSABLEZS’ blog.

‘What You Should Know’ is a column that offers to educate and enlighten the public on general falsehood and myths.